James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix, gave the Alumni Convocation address at the University of Chicago last weekend. His genome had been sequenced, he said, but he didn’t want to know if he had “the Alzheimer’s gene”.
This is misleading. It implies too much certainty, like a measurement with too many digits. It is entirely possible that this “Alzheimer’s gene” determines one’s vulnerability to low levels of omega-3s and that with sufficient omega-3 it makes no difference.
...is there a “scurvy gene”? Surely there are genes that affect one’s sensitivity to low levels of Vitamin C. But no one cares about them — because most people get enough Vitamin C to avoid scurvy.
Read the whole thing. Also see this related article in the New York Times.
1 comment:
Certainly anything can be taken too far and misused.
However, I can see how it may help some people to know that they have a genetic predisposition or weakness. That literally could make save someone's life, or save them from a horrible disease.
Is it wrong to tell someone they have a unique sensitivity to certain types of food, and so should avoid those foods? Is it wrong to tell someone they have a weakness in their heart and so should avoid certain types of exertion? Is is wrong to tell someone about weak bone density and so they should emphasize some types of movement and minimize others? Is it wrong to tell someone that because their family has a history of alcoholism that they need to be especially careful with their own exposure to alcohol?
All of the above examples are very non-controversial, and most everyone would say that it was beneficial for people to know those medical weaknesses and react to them. One can come up with many more examples.
It's no different with knowing genetic weaknesses. I think the problem is attempting to interpret genetic traits as somehow deterministic. People can benefit from knowing the truth about their genes, but also need to be educated that genes are not always destiny, so to speak.
Post a Comment